31 December 2012

2012 has been a queer, busy old year. Council Elections in May. Months of legal and political wrangling on the independence referendum, finally resolved in October, with the publication of a draft section 30 order to put the legality of the referendum beyond down, and to kill devo-something stone dead. In parallel, an often bilious and occasionally bitter argument about introducing same-sex marriage. The launches of both YesScotland and BetterTogether, neither event exactly capturing the imagination.

Outwith formal politics, thousands gathered to march in support of independence under a cyan Edinburgh sky, while in Glasgow in November, just shy of a thousand leftie activists assembled for a Radical Independence Conference (a sketch of which, written by yours truly, should be appearing in the next edition of the Drouth magazine).

In a first for me, I was also denounced by a Labour MP as a Nationalist stooge, in cahoots with Isabel Fraser in an anti-Labour conspiracy on BBC "Newsnat". In the second part of the year, Michael Greenwell and I embarkedon our For A' That series of podcasts, which we hope will mature into a constructive space for conversation and arguments about the issues, in the lead up to 2014. In a gesture towards things to come, we're conscious that a pro-nationalist echo-chamber does not an interesting podcast make, and the inclusion of folk hostile to independence (Ian Smart) and folk who remain undecided but persuadable (Alex Massie) will be the stamp of things to come. All suggestions for guests you'd like to hear more from, and neglected or interesting issues worth discussing, gratefully received. We'll do our best to bend arms and tempt folk into our liberally-stocked green room.

In anticipation of tonight's revels to usher in 2013, I thought I'd take a wee look back, over the most popular top ten posts of 2012.

1. I don't know if Anderstonians, Partickians, and Hillheadists are particularly interested in their local politics, but coming in in first place, is this post from May on the Glasgow Council Election results in Anderston Hillhead and Partick. The post fell in one of a series, covering all of the wards in Glasgow, condensing the results into graphs in an effort to make the STV election we use comprehensible, and afford a better insight than is usually available into the closeness of the races.

2. In second place, February thoughts on On Labour's Cybernat Problem, tracing the genealogy of this now-familiar, frumious persona, and the psychological compensations for those, desperate to find the "dark heart" of Scottish nationalism.

3. Thirdly, from July, we had Labour for Independence? How can it be that a party of soi-dissant non-nationalists, non-unionists, instrumental socialists(ish), all agree that the status quo is the only practicable mechanism to realise their political convictions. Isn't that just a little queer?

4. Ecclefechan Mackay will be delighted. In at number four, in the balmy Olympic days of June,a cross-post from the Kinlochberviee Chronicle, reporting on the forces drafted in by Theresa May to supplement G4S's bungling security provision. A serious bit of analysis, in Crack Womble Squad Drafted in to protect Olympics.

5. We're back to Labour at number five, with a close reading of an important speech in June, articulating a defence of the Union in England. Arguably the most interesting quality of Miliband's pro-union analysis was its shift in gear from the usual Labour fare. We're used to hearing about solidarity between "hard-working families" on both sides of the border, and the rhetoric of shared resistance against perfidious Conservatism. Historian Colin Kidd has described this as an argument from "instrumental Unionism" - the mirror image of Nicola Sturgeon's recent invocation of a "utilitarian nationalism", driven not so much by considerations of national identity or culture, but a desire for power to be reclaimed by Scottish institutions to shape a particular kind of politics and society. Interestingly, Miliband's speech took an entirely different tack, and focussed instead on affective British identity, or in Nicola's terms, "existential nationalist" reasons to maintain the union. His message: feel British? Vote no. A clear case, for me, of Ed Miliband: British nationalist.

6) At number six, an untimely little story. 2011 was the year for controversy about the UK Supreme Court, but 2012 arguably presented opportunities which the SNP in Holyrood neglected. In May, I asked, Can Holyrood repudiate the UK Supreme Court's civil jurisdiction? The interesting - and for some, probably surprising - answer is that there is a strong argument that they could, and it lies within the SNP's power unilaterally to cut the centuries old appeal to the House of Lords as was, now the UK Court. One has to wonder, why the inactivity? Why not exert your majority? Concern not to revive the damaging ugliness of 2011's overheated critique? Caution?

8. Swithering at number eight. Others regard this year's referendum negotiations as an exercise in arid formalism and shadowboxing, but for me, the critical decision of 2012 was the elimination of any devo-something question from the referendum ballot. It was always going to be difficult to frame the question, but even for this nationalist-with-regrets, the prospect of asking a devolutionary question was not unattractive. "Better Together" is not a political maxim I live by, but I suspect many who now support an independent Scotland will vote yes in 2014, mourning Britain's unrealised better history. "A nationalist liferaft, but who is it for?"

9. 2012 was the first full year in which the Offensive Behaviour at Football etc (Scotland) Act 2011 was in force. September threw up this interesting case from the sheriff court, where the new legislation seemed to frustrate a prosecution for disorderly, allegedly sectarian conduct aboard a train, while an old-fashioned breach of the peace charge might well have done the trick. The first peep from a deflating political football?

10. And lastly, in tenth place, the Edinburgh Agreement, which eased years of palpitations on my part about the independence referendum being waylaid in la, and ending up before the UK Supreme Court. I was particularly struck by how far David Cameron was drawn into the semiotics of the occasion, with all the ritual, bells and whistles, rather than ratifying a memo of ministerial agreement by a more informal exchange of emails, or letters. A little thing, perhaps, but it gave us a compelling, concrete image of what an independent Scottish diplomacy might look like. Cameron: a willing actor in Salmond's drama.

And that, as they say, is that for 2012. Enjoy a dram or two tonight, and a fortifying slab of black bun. Happy New Year!

29 December 2012

I'm an honours list grinch.I imagine a good few of you are too, and survey the bi-annual dishing out of damehoods and ennobling shoulder-bonking with the regal scimitar without enthusiasm. Within the British state, grousing about such fopperies avails us not at all, but the combination of disgruntlement and powerlessness is not entirely without its psychological compensations. Our egalitarian-minded girning never has to contend with the heavy political weather of actually abolishing the ermine, the gewgaws, the ribbon and the magic names.

You can imagine the Scotsman headlines, if any parliamentarian had enough brass neck to introduce an Abolition of Nobility (Scotland) Bill. "Outcry as Olympic hero Hoy to be stripped of knighthood"; "Abolishing dukedoms 'violates human rights', experts claim"; "Foulkes 'forced to live rough' if deprived of his Barony".

Courtesy of Pater Peat Worrier, my Christmas morning stocking was plump with a copy of the late Stephen Maxwell's Arguing for Independence: Evidence, Risks and the Wicked Issues (2012) this year. It is a lucid, accessibly-written volume, which will prove invaluable for anyone trying to convince skeptical family members or cronies about the potential benefits of independence, or who risk political conversations down the pub. Perhaps the greatest strength of the book is the extent to which it tackles the issues of risks and probability head on, without fear, and without apology.

Maxwell isn't feart to recognise both upsides and downsides, opportunities and challenges, which Scottish independence might bring. Whatever your views on the national question, this candour is refreshing and the level of the debate would be significantly improved, if unionists as well as nationalists leant Maxwell's arguments some of their time. A number of the book's themes resonated with me, but for the moment, let's focus on just one: responsibility. Over the past year, we've heard a good deal from a number of commentators about Scotland's (often only abstract) social democratic sensibilities. It also came up in our conversation with Kevin Williamson and Rory Scothorne in episode seven of the For A' That podcast, and to an extent, in Alex Massie's prediction that an independent Scotland would not be a "socialist nirvana" as some hope, but a state likely to resort to more "neoliberal" forms of governance.

In a chapter headed The Cultural Case, (p. 148), Maxwell writes:

"By equipping Scots with the authority and responsibility to act across the whole spectrum of issues, independence would expose Scotland's moralising rhetoric of resistance to sterner tests than it will ever face under the forms of devolution currently touted by the Unionist parties. It would remove the alibi for inaction provided by the Union and confront the voters with the consequences of their collusion in the politicians' rhetoric.How much would we be prepared to pay in higher taxes for our opposition to spending cuts? Ho many more asylum seekers or economic migrants would we be ready to welcome to Scotland when the UK Border Agency is no longer there to do the dirty work of control and deportation? How much redistribution of income and wealth are the better off prepared to accept in the name of a fairer and more compassionate Scotland? How many jobs are we prepared to jeopardise in the short term as the price of terminating our role in the UK's delusional defence strategy?The answers might be unsettling, but our public culture would be the better for being able to subject politicians' rhetoric to the test of practical responsibility."

Rings bells for me. Between the idea, And the reality, Between the motion, And the act, Falls the Shadow. As Kenny MacAskill almost said, eventually, one really ought to grow tired of just girning. Arise Sir Wiggo.

24 December 2012

Holly berries, little ruby bursts. Robin redbreasts frozen to branches. The White Witch abroad. It may be more of a case of in the dreich midwinter, rather than let it snow, let it snow, let it snow in Scotland at the moment, but nothing can dim the Festive good cheer on the For A' That podcast.

With the apocalypse averted, the year ended, and vast quantities of brandy-laced stodge in prospect, our guests this week embraced the seasonal spirit by casting a suitably leery eye over the last twelve months in politics and the independence debate. On this edition, Michael and I were joined by a couple of characters from rather different ends of the Scottish political spectrum for the last podcast of 2012.

Coming up the left flank, we have Robin McAlpine, director of the Jimmy Reid Foundation and editor of the Scottish Left Review. Drifting rightward on the political spectrum, our second quest was Alex Massie, who blogs over at the Spectator. How has the independence campaign been shaping up? How are Yes Scotland and Better Together getting on this last year? And for larks, Michael went spelunking among the cuttings to find the most eccentric - or simply batty stories - published over the last year about that perilous future state, an independent Scotland. A provocation to God? An incipient outpost for the international Caliphate? Or a threat to the masculine spirit of the fighting Scotsman, bereft of decent wars to fight in? Your guess is as good as ours.

We'll be back with more discussion in the new year. Until then, you can listen to the show directly here, or download it, either via your iTunes, or the podcast's home page. You can also find the whole back run of 2012's nine episodes here, to catch up with any you missed first time around.

Otherwise, it only remains to say, my very best Christmassy salutations to everyone who has leant this blog and the new podcast their time over the last twelve months, and commented, emailed and donated. Both enterprises remain grand fun to do. I hope you've found them diverting and engaging. Have a spiffing Christmas one and all, I hope Santa is good to you, and most essential of all, live tomorrow by this simple rule: don't overcook your bird, and do enjoy a fortifying beaker or two. Shalom!

20 December 2012

It isn't exactly a seasonal dish, but ought this blogger to brace himself for a vast slice of humble pie?

During the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011's passage through Holyrood, several parliamentarians, and articles in the press, implied that the legislation would result in the reindictment of Angus Sinclair, accused of committing the so-called World's End murders of the seventeen year old Helen Scott and Christine Eadie in 1977. As you will likely recall, Sinclair's murder trial collapsed in 2007 after Lord Clarke held that the evidence presented to the jury was insufficient in law, to sustain any conviction. Throughout the process of introducing these legal reforms, I was pretty sceptical about the likelihood that the specific changes which Holyrood enacted to the rules on tholing your assize would see the World's End case retried, despite the political pressure from various quarters to do so.

Today, however, the Crown Office have announced that they have applied to the High Court of Justiciary to have Sinclair's acquittal set aside, and the opportunity to re-indict him for killing Eadie and Scott. This is the first application made by the Lord Advocate since the 2011 Act came into force. The application will be decided by at least three judges of the High Court, and their decision is final and not subject to any appeal. So what will the Crown have to argue, if they are going to be granted authority to retry Sinclair?

There are three main exceptions to the general rule that you cannot be tried twice for the same offence in Scotland. Firstly, your acquittal can be set aside if the trial was "tainted" - for example by someone threatening or bribing, or attempting to threaten or to bribe judge or jury or witnesses. As far as I'm aware, there is no suggestion that the Crown is making an application under this section. The second exception is where the person admits their guilt after having been acquitted. There are some qualifications to granting reprosecutions under this heading, however. The Court can only set aside the acquittal if four - prima facie rather stringent - tests are met:

That the admission of guilt "was not known, and could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence have become known, to the prosecutor" by the time of the original acquittal.

The "case against the person is strengthened substantially by the admission".

That "the admission and the evidence which was led at the trial in respect of the original offence, it is highly likely that a reasonable jury properly instructed would have convicted the person"; and

That "it is in the interests of justice to do so".

Imagining myself invested with judicial grandeur, wig and gown, I struggle to imagine the circumstances where almost any credible evidence of a post-acquittal admission of guilt would not be regarded by the Court as substantially strengthening a case and heightening the likelihood of conviction. Unless, I suppose, the case was fearfully, uncharacteristically weak to begin with. Again, it is worth emphasising that the Crown announcement today contains no information on which of these grounds they are proceeding, but a prison confession would be one possibility.

The final ground to set aside an acquittal is that "new evidence" materialises in the meanwhile. This ground is only available where the original trial was on indictment in the High Court. Practically speaking, this means that acquittals pronounced in the Sheriff Court, whether by judge alone, or sheriff and jury, can't be overturned on the basis of "new evidence", pertinent or persuasive as it might be. Critically, however, not just any additional evidence will do to knock an acquittal flat. In echo of the strictures we saw around subsequent admissions of guilt, the Court may only set aside the acquittal if it is satisfied that:

The "case against the person is strengthened substantially by the new evidence";

The new evidence "was not available, and could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence have been made available" at the first trial.

On the new evidence and the evidence which was led at that trial, it is highly likely that a reasonable jury properly instructed would have convicted the person.

And lastly, that "it is in the interests of justice to do so".

A few general observations about these qualifications. Firstly, it remains to be seen how expansively or restrictively the High Court will interpret these provisions, but the phrases which I've highlighted above at least gesture towards the Court taking a fairly strict line on what sort of new evidence might justify quashing an acquittal. It certainly should not be taken for granted, for example, that the Court will agree with prosecutors' assessments of the significance and novelty of any new evidence which they wish to adduce. We might be able to agree, for instance, that additional evidence might strengthen an Advocate Depute's case, but it's a matter of judgement and context, rather than strict rule, what a "substantially strengthened" case might look like. Or for that matter, whether supplementing the prosecutor's case with the new evidence would make it "highly" likely, rather than simply more likely, that the jury would find the charges proven against the acquitted person. You might well think, however, that any additional material would have to be pretty darned incriminating, or at least, capable of an incriminatory reading.

In particular, notice too that under the Act, the new evidence must not have been available at the time of the original trial. The evidence would not, for example, be "new" if it was available but simply not lead before the jury by prosecutors. Similarly, want of diligence in ferreting out evidence on the part of the prosecutors and the police cannot be rewarded by a fresh prosecution, though the question of what sort of investigative techniques a "reasonably diligent" copper might employ is obviously open to interpretation at the margins. Our legislators, minds full of "cold cases" from the telly, and advances in forensic technologies, were probably thinking about evidence which it was scientifically impossible to obtain in the past, but are now the common currency of law enforcement.

This paradigm doesn't seem to fit neatly with the facts of Sinclair's acquittal. While the murders of Eadie and Scott occurred in 1977, Sinclair's first trial did not take place until thirty years later. It will be for the Lord Advocate to substantiate, between 2007 and 2012, rather than 1977 and 2007, that some additional significant evidence has come to light warranting the reactivation of criminal proceedings against Sinclair. While it is easy to envisage big changes in the investigative techniques available between the 1970s and the early 2000s, it is a bit trickier to see what radical technological innovations may have occurred over the last half decade, generating evidence where evidence formerly was unavailable.

I've no insight whatever into the substance of the Crown's case, and it may well be that they have uncovered credible evidence of a confession, or new evidence within or outwith the natty fields of forensic science. No doubt we'll hear in greater detail, when the application is presented in open court some time in the new year. On the basis of what the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act says, however, there are still plenty of reasons to ca' canny at this stage about the High Court granting authority to the Crown for a second World End's trial to proceed.

17 December 2012

Is Alex Salmond flagging? Losing his political touch a bit? Is he just another tall Scottish poppy, at risk of being "untimely plucked, soon vaded"? That's the thesis we kicked off by examining in this week's For A' That podcast. On this, eighth, edition of the show, Michael and I were joined by self-styled "lefty lawyer and Scottish Labour Party hack", Ian Smart.

We also took a look at the evolving political statures of three of Scotland's leading female politicians. What might the future hold for the careers of Nicola Sturgeon, Johann Lamont, and Ruth Davidson and their parties, whatever happens in 2014? To give you a sneak peek inside the can, Ian's assessment of his party's and leader's future fortunes is, to say the least, rather bleak.

In a week in which the Scottish Government published its draft equal marriage Bill for consultation, we reviewed the last year's debate on the issue, and discuss the broader issue of whether it is a problem that Scottish political institutions are failing to represent conservative sections of public opinion. I also took the opportunity to ask Ian, who is a former president of the Law Society of Scotland, about the recent controversy about Kenny MacAskill's proposed changes to the legal aid regime north of the border. Ian also afforded an interesting insight into the struggles of legally unrepresented litigants in court, and the challenges which their participation in legal proceedings can pose to both judges, and lawyers briefed for the other side. Otherwise, we also touched briefly on the flag protests in Belfast, which was mirrored by a union-jack festooned protest outside the City Chambers in Glasgow.

We'll be back next weekend, with our For A' That Review of the Year. As we tend towards the Festive season, and the (almost) end of our first calendar year of podcastery, I also wanted to say many thanks to all those folk who've supported this project, either by lending their ears to the shows, supporting it financially via our donate buttons, telling their pals about it, and of course to the guests who've given of their time to come on. They're very entertaining to do - and I hope a beneficial and diverting addition to Scottish political commentary, at a time when we need to pull together every scrap of useful discussion which we can.

As usual, you can listen to the latest episode online here, or download it from the player, or from iTunes, for later.

9 December 2012

With December drawing in, bare branches and rime-edged mornings, we're onto episode seven of the For A' That podcast, dishing up weekly doses of timely and untimely thoughts about the state of the nation, as we inch slowly towards 2014. Today, Michael and I were joined by Kevin Williamson, who is a gentleman with a finger in many artistic and non-artistic pies, including the Bella Caledonia blog, and Rory Scothorne, who is a co-founder of the National Collective project, who joined us on the show from the other side of the Atlantic ocean.

This week, questions of Culture emerge as our major theme, in a blether ranging across the latest challenges faced by Creative Scotland, comfort and discomfort with a Scottish voice in film, literature and music, and how artistry and political conviction marry (and may not always comfortably marry).

In more conventional political terms, we also chewed over the virtues and vices of the thinking underlying Nicola Sturgeon's latest speech. What challenges might it pose to the Labour party and the Better Together campaign? More generally, is it helpful to think of Scotland a more left-inflected nation, politically, than our southern neighbours, or is this a unconvincing myth? How does thinking - and perhaps divergent thinking - about class in England and Scotland feed into this?

Lastly, Michael spotted a tale in the Scotsman about funding being funnelled by the Economic and Social Research Council into academic fellowships to study the implications of Scottish independence. We discuss his anxieties. As usual, you can lend your ears to the show directly here.

Alternatively, you can download the latest edition of the podcast here, or lay your paws on it via iTunes.

3 December 2012

I confess, Nicola Sturgeon has never before struck me as a likely devotee of Thomas Stearns Eliot, but I'm always happy to be surprised. Subverting the tyranny of Robert Burns, Hugh MacDiarmid and Edwin Morgan in the First Minister's book of quotations, his Deputy today opened a speech at the University of Strathclyde, with an epigram or two culled from the poet's Little Gidding:

"We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our
exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the
first time..."

Her topic was, unsurprisingly, Scottish independence, and Sturgeon's title "Building a Better Nation". I dare say a scrap or two of her remarks might find their way into the Scottish press, or be briefly recounted in the sagging corner of a Scottish edition here or there, but they are unlikely to impinge on the consciousness of a UK audience, one way or the other. On one level, this is perfectly creditable omission on their part, and it would be a surprise if Nicola's thoughts were to invade kitchens across Britain, to be consumed avidly alongside a gulp of coffee or hasty crumb of toast. On another level, however, that Telegraph or Mail readers will not encounter the sort of nationalistic case Nicola is articulating, is a pity.

One may wonder what impact, if any, Ed Miliband's "Defending the Union in England" speech over the summer made on the public consciousness. His remarks were, however, interesting and important
in another respect: they attempted to frame understandings and the
debate about Scottish nationalism in England in a very particular way. Around
half-way through, the Labour leader made the following
observation. He said...

"Why
does this matter to the debate about the United Kingdom? In my view, it
is absolutely central. Of course, there are economic and political
arguments advanced for Scottish separatism. But even though they often
don’t admit it, the logic of the nationalists’ case goes beyond politics
and the economy. It insists that the identification with one of our
nations is diminished by the identity with our country a whole. After
all, they want to force people to choose. To be Scottish or British. I
say you can be both."

"Clean-up in aisle five. The stuffing has fallen out of Mr Miliband's straw man." That
"of course", dispensing with economic and political reasons for
independence, is doing an awful lot of work, and the general gist of
Ed's argument seems pretty plain. For Ed, the resolution of the national
question in Scotland ought to turn, finally, on the question of identity. His formulation is simple: if you feel British - even a smidgeon, a smudge, a frisson, a flutter - vote no.
That's some heavy-duty gloss he's applied to the "really-existing
Scottish nationalism" whose constitutional hopes Miliband hopes to
extinguish. The devil of it is that this highly misleading account of the character of contemporary Scottish nationalism is arguably the dominant understanding of the phenomenon which you meet here in England.

As those of you who regularly follow our For A' Thatpodcast series will know, the state of the Scottish independence debate across the UK is
a well-worn hobby horse of mine. There are several reasons for my interest,
not least that I have lived in England since the autumn of 2009, while
retaining a strong interest (often via this site and the conversations
it has sparked) in what has been going on in Scotland. Squinting north
from the lee side of Hadrian's wall affords a certain
perspective, and chatting to people in England about the prospect of
independence, you come to a view about the sorts of images and accounts
of Scottish nationalism which are gaining purchase among thoughtful,
inquiring people. They're generally unrecognisable to me, or sketchy beyond measure. If you accept the Miliband model, Scottish nationalists are pre-eminently seen as a rather suspect,
bamboozling, ragbag, potentially even slightly sinister, band united
around the lurid tat of tartan kitsch and howling Braveheartism. "I say, old chap. Steady on."

Let's bring Nicola back in here, and consider the following section from her lecture today...

"One of the great intellectuals of the nationalist movement - and
someone we all miss dearly – the late Professor Sir Neil MacCormick,
distinguished between what he called the existentialist and the
utilitarian strands of the nationalist movement. The former described
those who thought Scotland was entitled to be independent simply because
we are a nation, the latter that independence was a tool to deliver a
better society.

While I recognise the distinction Neil drew and
realise that there are some in our national movement who base their
political beliefs more on the fact of nationhood, I would suggest that
today most SNP members are an amalgam of these two strands.

For
my part, and I believe for my generation, I have never doubted that
Scotland is a nation. And while I might not go on about a thousand years
of history and that sort of thing I take it for granted as a simple
fact that Scotland is a nation with an inalienable right to
self-determination.

But for me the fact of nationhood or
Scottish identity is not the motive force for independence. Nor do I
believe that independence, however desirable, is essential for the
preservation of our distinctive Scottish identity. And I don’t agree at
all that feeling British – with all of the shared social, family and
cultural heritage that makes up such an identity – is in any way
inconsistent with a pragmatic, utilitarian support for political
independence.

My conviction that Scotland should be independent
stems from the principles, not of identity or nationality, but of
democracy and social justice."

On twitter, the journalist David Torrance described the speech as a whole as "the most lucid statement of modern Nationalist thinking [he'd] seen". And with due credit to Nicola, I'd concur with that assessment. The frustration, however, is that this lucid account will - inevitably - struggle to dent the accumulated woad-smacked, plaid-bound banalities which thrive in the images of Scottish nationalism cultivated by the UK media. It is significant, too, I think, that not only is Sturgeon's logic lucid - it is also representative of the thinking which underpins a much wider, popular nationalist analysis: if independence is the answer, what is the question that it answers?

At the Radical Independence Conference in Glasgow two Saturdays back, a couple of features of the debate were particularly striking. Firstly, the broad gamut of speakers were absolutely united by their fatalism about their ability to realise anything like the sort of politics they wanted within the confines of the British state. More significantly, perhaps, was the mostly unarticulated, undebated, taken-for-granted proposition that an independent Scotland would be better placed to begin realising delegates' left-leaning goals. This found expression in simple, but I think telling ways. The big crowd-pleaser in plenary and workshop sessions was not independence, per se. The ideas which merited spontaneous cheers and applause included the collective ownership of renewable energies generation, opposition to austerity and welfare cuts and to Nato and to nuclear weapons.

The critical point is this: here was an assembly of some nine hundred folk, none of whom the reader, lead by the nose by the UK press to expect romantic impractical Bravehearts, would have found remotely recognisable. Although Sturgeon and the anarchist-marxist-feminist-socialist-environmentalist campaigner who sat in the Radisson Blu last week would likely find a great deal to disagree about politically, and how the institutions of independent Scotland ought to exercise the liberty which constitutional change would afford them, it is fascinating how far these two core assumptions about the case for Scottish independence are i) shared between mainstream and "left-radical" proponents of Scottish independence and ii) both are largely misunderstood and left out of UK press reports only occasionally dipping in to Scottish affairs.

It is a point I've made a few times before, but on a day when Sturgeon's persuasive statement of contemporary nationalism will likely find itself stoppered within the confines of Scottish commentary, it is important to understand we can already detect the straining signs of the UK's accelerating "social disunion". For those who favour the status quo, this drift must surely be concerning. While it may seem to suit partisan anti-nationalism to see folk like Sturgeon reduced to convenient cyphers and straw (wo)men to be flattened, that the United Kingdom doesn't even appear to be interested in the possibility that all will be changed and changed utterly for it in 2014, hardly speaks to a lively social and political union of reciprocal interest and concern. Indeed, it perhaps recalls another frustrated passage, from another, arguably more famous, Eliot poem...

'My nerves are bad to-night. Yes, bad. Stay with me. 'Speak to me. Why do you never speak. Speak. 'What are you thinking of? What thinking? What? 'I never know what you are thinking. Think.'

Sixth time, the charm. The start of another week, and inevitably, another edition of the For A' That podcast. This time around, Michael and I were joined in our plush studio by freelance journalist Peter Geoghegan (whose cover story about disability you may have seen in yesterday's Sunday Herald) and Philip Challinor, a London-based curmudgeonly blogger and self-published novelist.

What future does the media have in an independent Scotland? Might independence prove reinvigorating for the rusting Scotch presses, or like devolution, see the paradoxical shrinking in the scope and ambition of its productions? What, if anything, might Levesonian developments have to say to that? And back in a wider Britain, what are we to make of UKIP's upward political momentum? Ought we to be consecrating public holidays in a secular state to old, dead sainted men? And to flip the ordinary logic of our debates, just why might Britain want to hold onto Scotland anyway? Michael has a telling, somewhat time-worn quotation from Jack Straw on the theme, which kicks off a little debate.

As usual, you can also download the show from here, or, as preferences tend, on iTunes here. This is the sixth in our series of weekly podcasts. If you'd like to dip into our back catalogue, and revivify past conversations, you can listen back to episodes one, two, three, four and five here.

“I think of him more of a long nosed, elegantly coiffed Afghan pawing through his leather bound library whilst disdainfully inhaling a puddle of Armagnac in an immense crystal snifter. If he can also lift his leg over his shoulder and lick his balls...” ~ Conan the Librarian™

“... the erudite and loquacious Peat Worrier who never knowingly avoids a prolix circumlocution.” ~Love and Garbage

“My initial mind picture was of a scanty bikini'd individual wallowing in a bath tub of peat. However I've since learned to warm to him, and like peat he's slow to draw but quick to heat...” ~Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers

Definition: "to worry peat" v.

"Peat worrying" is the little known or understood process for the extraction of cultural peat, practised primarily in the Lowlands of Scotland by aspirant urban rustics. Primary implements by means of which successful "worrying" is achieved include the traditional oxter-flaughter but also the sharp-edged kailyard and the innovative skirlie stramasher.